quiz 5
Identify the primary purpose and explain the rights reflected in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment states the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and protects from arbitrary arrests. This gives the people a right to privacy of their bodies and their possessions and sets a standard for law enforcement to have probable cause and obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search. The famous Supreme Court case of Katz v. United States provided groundwork for the expectation of privacy. Under the fourth amendment it is unconstitutional to carry out a search and seizure without a warrant where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, excluding when certain expectations apply. Katz widened this right of protection to electronic wiretapping. This case also showed that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public telephone booth.
What are the facts of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)? How does this case impact police conduct and the admission of evidence at a criminal trial?
A small bomb went off in a neighbor's house and Dolly Mapp was suspected to be responsible for this. Upon the arrival of police at Dolly Maps door, she asked whether there was a warrant. Police officers would search without warrants because the evidence would still be used in court. The police went away when she fought this, but they came back and broke in claiming they have a warrant. When she took the paper from them, the warrant was not legal. They did not find any evidence of the bomb, but they found pornographic material and she was arrested for this. This pornographic material was not Mapp's, yet a landlord who was staying in her place. Her defense tried to get her charges dropped through the exclusionary rule. Ohio did not use the exclusionary rule and allowed the evidence of the obscene material to be used. Dolly Mapp's case made its way to the Supreme Court, where 6 to 3 the Supreme Court ruled stating that evidence that was unlawfully or illegally obtained should not be used in court. Justice Clark delivered this decision. This case strengthened the Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures by making it illegal for evidence to be used in a state court that was obtained without a warrant. However, there are some exclusions to the exclusionary rule. In the case of Strieff v. Utah, Streiff was arrested and was found to have drugs on him. Streiff argued to have his drug charges dropped since this evidence was found through an unlawful investigatory stop and search. Although this was true, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 in favor of Utah since the cost of excluding this evidence outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule applies when societal benefits exceed the societal costs of applying the rule.
Identify and explain three significant concepts presented in our class so far this semester:
A) The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal court and is a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment. Evidence gathered by law enforcement that violates an individual's constitutional rights cannot be used in a criminal trial. This rule is significant because it acts like a symbol of the justice system's dedication and loyalty to the citizen rights. The case of Mapps v. Ohio, as previously discussed in this paper, prohibited evidence to be used in a court that was obtained through unlawful searches. B) Police force, such as deadly and excessive force, is a significant and relevant topic that was discussed in class. It seems like almost everyday on the news or on social media we see new devastating cases of police brutality ending in the loss of lives. Police can use deadly force only when necessary, such as when they have probable cause and reasonable doubt that a suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm or when a dangerous suspect involving the infliction of serious injury is attempting to flee. Excessive force however is never justified. Excessive force is force in excess to what a law enforcement officer believes is necessary to use. On May 25, 2020, police officers responded to a call about the use of a fake bill being used to buy cigarettes at a convenience store. Upon their arrival, 46 year old George Flyod became unable to breathe under the knee of one of the officers. The officer who kept his knee pinned on George Flyod's neck ended up killing him. This sad case of Flyod is just one of the many police cases of excessive force being used in our society. C) The due process model is a model of the criminal justice process that focuses on the rights of the accused and advocates formal decision-making procedures. Due process, found in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process law. This model assumes that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and believes the accused should have the right to their day in court. The due process model believes that policing is essential in maintaining justice in a society. Due process protects defendants since rights to protect individuals, such as the right to a jury and right to counsel, fall under this model. When someones due process rights are violated, they can then challenge the prosecution and have charges dropped potentially. Due process is important in criminal justice since it guarantees integrity in all legal matters and protects and prevents unjust treatment. In the case of Miranda v Arizona, Arizona's charges of kidnapping and rape was dismissed since Arizona was not properly informed of his right to remain silent. Due process blocks the government from depriving individuals of their rights, which is why the Miranda case is so important. Self-incrimination is something that can be avoided with knowledge of the 5th amendment right to remain silent.
Does the United States Constitution provide the right to privacy?
Although the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, many amendments imply the right to privacy. As stated in the First Amendment, everyone has a right to practice any religion, or none at all, and keep that decision private. The Third Amendment protects privacy in our homes since there is a reasonable interest in privacy here. The Fourth Amendment provides a right of privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government. The Fifth Amendment provides protection of private information through the right against self-incrimination. The Ninth Amendment gives the rights not listed in the United States Constitution to its citizens and not the federal government. The Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas found that the right to privacy protects consensual and adult sexual encounters within a home. This was ruled 6-3 in protecting the constitutional right to privacy as intimacy is a private matter where there is an expectation of privacy.
Under what two scenarios might a warrant be issued? Identify and describe three components to a valid warrant:
Search warrants are issued by judges and allow law enforcement to search specific locations and seize certain items. A search is an entry into a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, in the Mapp v. Ohio case, the police officers needed a valid search warrant in order to search Dolly Mapps home. Arrest warrants apply to the seizing of a person when officers take possession of them. Arrest warrant is specific to an individual. A) Probable cause is needed to obtain a warrant. Probable cause is a legal basis in which any reasonable person would think that a crime is, has been, or will be committed. B) A neutral and detached judge, meaning being detached from the prosecution, must issue the warrant. This ensures that there is integrity and equal treatment. C) The description of items to be seized must be specified, unless contraband, such as illegal drugs, is in plain sight. The warrant must state in particular the place to be searched. This protects against unreasonable and unlawful searches.